drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From rahul challapalli <challapallira...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing advanced/functional tests
Date Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:28:18 GMT
Ramana,

Let me fill in more details.

1. Before we accept a patch we want to make sure the tests run in a cluster
environment. No exceptions here.
2. We want  the contributors to be able to debug the failing tests on their
laptops in as many cases as possbile. This requires :
        1. Tests should run on top of a local file system. (Tests can
launch an embedded drillbit or they can connect to a running drillbit
through zookeeper)
        2. Running suites which require additional setup (hive, hbase etc)
should be made optional and sufficient documentation should be provided for
enabling and disabling these tests.
3. In my opinion making these new tests part of drill would make it easier
for the developers to debug and run tests instead of having a different
repository. But as you said it might bloat the drill project

- Rahul

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Hadoop family of projects has some software that integrates a
> continuous integration system so that every time a JIRA is marked as
> patch-available, the associated patch attached to the bug will have
> integration tests run against it.  I believe that there has been some
> process to use git hashes instead of patches.  The CI results are put back
> on the JIRA.
>
> This is done using a fairly simple set of scripts.  Apache Yetus is just
> forming as a direct-to-top-level spinoff from Hadoop
>
> Proposal is here (don't be fooled by the fact that it looks like an
> incubation proposal):
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/YetusProposal
>
> Early code can be found here (don't guess that this is very real yet).
> More links can be found in the proposal.
>
> https://github.com/sekikn/pre-yetus/tree/master/precommit/docs
>
> The project has not yet been formed and there are no mailing lists or git
> repo yet.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Ramana I N <inramana@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As someone who worked on this for a while, including it as part of drill
> > may bloat drill a bit too much. Also not a big fan of running against an
> > embedded drillbit. Does not replicate an actual production use case.
> >
> > Additionally, setting up hive hbase and other components maybe painful
> and
> > unnecessary for most ppl. It would deter people from ever contributing to
> > drill. We could spin up in memory hive and hbase but that's similar to an
> > embedded drill bit. Does not replicate a production scenario.
> >
> > Would prefer the hive way with a central Jenkins server hosted on aws and
> > accessible to everyone.  Users should be able to submit a git url and
> that
> > should be able to deploy and fire off tests. Should then have a way to
> > easily communicate failures to contributors and if success notify the
> > commiters to commit the change.
> >
> > Ps: if hive's way is open source maybe we can look into reuse rather than
> > doing it from scratch. Esp the Jenkins and configuration stuff.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ramana
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, July 23, 2015, Parth Chandra <parthc@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Drill devs use a set of tests that are not available as part of the
> > Apache
> > > distribution. These tests are a pre-requisite for all commits, but are
> > not
> > > available to any contributors outside the current devs.
> > >
> > > This thread is to discuss various options to make these tests
> available.
> > >
> > > Assumptions and requirements  -
> > > 1) A functional test (as opposed to a unit test) needs to be closer to
> > the
> > > end user environment than a development environment. As such, we should
> > be
> > > running functional tests in a cluster environment, connect using
> > zookeeper
> > > etc.
> > > 2) Functional test will keep increasing in number, get more complex and
> > > take a longer and longer time to execute as we go along.
> > > 3) Some requirements are:
> > >     a) We want to be strict in enforcing the pre-commit requirements,
> but
> > > not penalize the contributor who has a minor fix.
> > >     b) All parts of the product (especially various 'certified' storage
> > > plugins like Hive and Hbase should get tested)
> > >     c) It should be easy to debug issues when a test fails. Tests
> should
> > > fail deterministically. If a test fails, it should always fail and
> always
> > > fail in the same way (easier said than done).
> > >
> > > Some suggestions -
> > > 1) Tests should be a top-level maven module within the drill project
> > >         a) We want  the integration tests to run as part of the drill's
> > > maven build process
> > >         b) The build step for the integration-tests module would launch
> > an
> > > embedded drillbit and runs tests against it
> > >         c) The tests will be a separate target so they need not be run
> > all
> > > the time
> > >  2) Tests should be divided into multiple suites that are based on
> > > components. For example a test suite for testing datatypes will contain
> > the
> > > tests for various datatypes including complex types. A contributor or
> > > developer can then run these tests more frequently as an issue is being
> > > addressed and run the entire suite only once before commit.
> > > 3) Provide the tests as a hosted service
> > > 4) Setup a bot to fire the test on an AWS cluster and post the results
> to
> > > the JIRA  (Hive does this). Or some variant of this idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some questions -
> > > 1) What do some other projects do?
> > > 2) Are there any technologies we can leverage that will make this
> easier?
> > > 3) How do we make it easier to debug failing tests.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please feel free to question the assumptions and requirements. Be
> > creative
> > > with your suggestions.
> > >
> > > Parth
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message